570 Megapixel Camera to Capture Dark Energy

[rantoc]

Even with a 260 gtx its often the limiter in the games... proves alot in the arguments that a more powerfull GPU is usualy a better upgrade than the CPU (depending on rig ect)

Thanks for the good article.

 

[Guest]

This isn't as good as people think. It only has a dual LED flash and no autofocus. If it had a Xenon flash and autofocus then it would be able to find the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I can just imagine it taking a picture and the Japanese are already there "F**k you Dolphin!"

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]supertrek32[/nom]They're actually two different concepts.Dark Energy is the unknown force that seems to propell all galaxies outward, away from each other. After the big bang, gravity should have started slowing down all the galaxies (although it would obviously take gazillions of years), eventually causing all matter in the universe to reverse direction and come together again. Recent evidence shows that galaxies are actually speeding up, not slowing down. The unknown force in called dark energy.Dark matter on the other hand, is related to theory of gravity. From what we know, any given normal matter has about 6 times more gravity than it should. So where's all the extra "weight" coming from? We don't know. So it's hypothesized that there's more matter, but it doesn't interact with normal matter. This is what's known as dark matter.[/citation]After reading some of the comments I realized I didn't know what I was talking about. LOL. Thanks for breakin it down though, this kind of stuff gets me all crazy inside.

 

[cmartin011]

570 megapixel Is the size of 1.7Gb BMP or a 3.4Gb TIFF. If You were recording it with a HD video camera RGB 24-bit color scheme at 30Fps it would Do 51.3Gb\s (which if it could it would Be ALOT higher because Much Wider Spectrum of light its focusing at Say Maybe 48-bit++ at 102.6Gb\s++) if You were to print one of these Pictures at photo size it would be 206.7in x 120.7in.Given this tele will have a very fine focus, much higher and Darker Altitude than say Hubble the Pictures will hopefully blow us away!

 

[Pailin]

The Wide Field Camera 3 features two UV/visible detecting CCDs, each 2048×4096 pixels, and a separate IR CCD of 1024×1024, capable of receiving infrared radiation up to 1700 nm. This is the last and most technologically advanced instrument to take images in the visible spectrum. It was installed as a replacement for the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 during the first spacewalk of Space Shuttle mission STS-125 on May 14, 2009.

So an 8.3 MP camera basically is now installed. Though of course there is more to it than just the number of MP...

And just for interest:

Although the new computer is hardly a powerhouse (a 25 MHz radiation hardened Intel 486 with two megabytes of RAM), it is still 20 times faster, with six times more memory, than the DF-224 it replaced.

They used older tech CPU's than were available in 1999 when this CPU upgrade was made due to their naturally higher resistance to radiation due to thicker internal circuits than the more modern equivalents.

 

[Pei-chen]

Fermilab in Batavia

So that's the reason for the delay.

 

[hillarymakesmecry]

What a waste of money.

 

[Mr_Man]

[citation][nom]marokero[/nom]Is there a specific wavelength the camera's sensors will be tuned to in order to "see" dark matter? [/citation]
They're monitoring the movement of galaxies and Supernovas to detect how the Dark Energy affects them. There won't be any "images of dark matter."
+1 to supertrek32's explanation of both.

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]NyRoc[/nom]Heard they were making a camera that could see stupidity and forecast major fails.. this looks like a good place to test their new camera.. So the earth is "billions" of years old? lol... Kinda like how Al Gore thinks the center of the earth is "couple million degrees"... The only dark energy they'll find is the S**T I flush down the toilet.. What a waste of money..[/citation]

How do you know how old the earth is? Besides, the article didn't say the Earth was billions of years old, however the Universe itself is. Reading comprehension for the win.

 

[mlauzon76]

What if it turns out that we see light as it is, and not as it was..?!

 

[Pailin]

You are actually right. They already know this.

The oldest light travels at a different speed to the newer light we are used to here.

 

[Someguyperson]

So NASA is using a massive camera to try to find Dark Matter? *sigh* Why won't people think of using something other than the visible spectrum to find something that is invisible? And while those pictures absolutely show SOMETHING is in the way, there is no way of actually determining WHAT it is. They really should be focusing on making a mega-Hubble to provide what it does already. You can't replace something as important as the Hubble with something as fruitless as this contraption.

 

[Yoder54]

[citation][nom]Gin Fushicho[/nom]I can't wait for science to change as we know it.[/citation]

What? Science is merely a method of observation. Technology is the tool of observation. Science will not change, but our theories and understanding of the world around us based on our observations will.

With this camera we may be able to look straight into the eye of God.

 

[Computer_Lots]

I've got no problem with NASA spending a little dough to for a better space camera. I think it could be useful to see more clearly what's out there. I do, however, have a problem with people turning this into a crusade to prove or disprove theories of the beginning of the universe. Perhaps we should just use the tools we have to see what the evidence shows us rather than having our own personal belief and then trying to create proof of our theory. It seems that the "Big Bang" and evolution and other such theories have become their own religion. It's funny that some people are so intent on disproving every other religion that they've created their own.

 

[Computer_Lots]

Of course, this could all be a cover story for NASA just wanting to take some nice high-res photos of nude beaches

 

[Guest]

So with Camera's like this they can see the hair in your nose from space? Now you will get speeding tickets from space!!! Oh I forgot this camera will only take nice pictures of space.

 

[earthwormsvx]

I was just thinking about how long before they turn the camera around and start taking pictures of China for Google Earth?

 

[rickd_2689]

Does it have a flash? What's the shutter speed? How big is the LCD? Does it have a touch screen? Hmm sounds like a piece of garbage to me.

 

[fatkid35]

they're gonna find god, elvis and bob marley smoking a fatty. then the universe as we know it will end.

 

[diablocricki]

[citation][nom]riependr[/nom]Ohh diablocricki, you're rationalization amazes me how simple of a problem you believe this is. You're statement is absolutely so short sided it's not even funny, to compare by simple addition is ridiculous. I would love to see the specs of this lens that is capable of providing the fidelity for such a large number of megapixels. Not only that, I would love to see the sensitivity of the sensors, and what they are implementing regarding low light photos. Can you imagine the aperture of the lens being used, it has to off the charts, I wonder what the weight of the lens being used is. As a person who covets slr's, creativity starts in the eye of the beholder, only to be exponentially elevated by glass one possesses! What company got the contract to make this lens??[/citation]



Absolutely stunning comment. I'm amazed how people like riependr can even spell (although they forget some words all together). I don't even know what to start with... but I'll give it a try.
1. You talk about the lens like it can actually make the picture better than the real image...I hate to break it to you my slr's " connoisseur" friend, but the lens cannot do that
2. I'm sure that you, as a slr " connoisseur" also know that the wider the aperture, the worse the image. If you didn't...well, at least you know now
3. Sensitivity, once again, my friend, works against you when it comes to quality (I expect you know at least that much)
4. Not sure what you mean by "such a large number of megapixels" )
Look at the title...it's only 570...Now, if you're an artist, I can understand that the numbers are not your best friend (and that's really good, if you really are one) so let me make it easy for you: you have maximum 570 million dots to describe an image (without using interpolation). It's really that simple. Now it comes down to how many thing you want to describe with those dots. If you want to describe one ant with 10 dots, that may be enough, but if you only have the same 10 dots to describe a whole tree with it's leaves and branches, the texture of it's bark and all the ants in it, how are you going to do that? Maybe now you can see how not having enough pixels can make a picture worthless. If not, I can't help you anymore.
I didn't mean to be disrespectful, but if I was, I apologize in advance.